Terrorism and gun control
- Thread starter RAfiringline
- Start date
- Status
RAfiringline
New member
>Terrorists couldn't care less about gun rights in America. But more gun control will not prevent further attacks, neither will more firearms. So both sides of the debate are talking rubbish to a certain extent.<
You missed the point. Terrorists do terrorism in order to get fear responses. If they can get people to stay away from concerts, be afraid of riding buses or flying in airplanes, or a whole nation to change it stance on gun control - that's a victory.
You missed the point. Terrorists do terrorism in order to get fear responses. If they can get people to stay away from concerts, be afraid of riding buses or flying in airplanes, or a whole nation to change it stance on gun control - that's a victory.
Manta49, I think you and I are on the same page regarding the root cause of terrorism, but I can only try to deal with what's happening here and now. Locally I have some small influence, but nationally I can only deal with the aftermath and try to keep myself, my family, and my neighbors safe. I'm probably like 99% of the world and just want to be left alone to live my life and give my kids the same chance.
Don't want to run anybody's life, don't want any money I didn't rightfully earn, and I mind my own business and expect everyone else to do likewise. Seems like that is not too much to ask.
Don't want to run anybody's life, don't want any money I didn't rightfully earn, and I mind my own business and expect everyone else to do likewise. Seems like that is not too much to ask.
buckhorn_cortez
New member
Let’s simplify the gun control question(s) and start out by looking at gun history.
1100 years of gun powder propellants - (invented by the Chinese during the Tang Dynasty in the 9th century)
700 years of direct fire, portable weapons (guns) - (invented by the Chinese in the 13th century)
235 years of repeating arms - (Girondoni air rifle 1780)
135 years of semiautomatic weapons - (Mannlicher Model 85, 1885)
Despite the ready availability of semi-auto guns for 135 years, it seems that only in the past 35 years that mass shootings have become a problem.
Therefore, the question that should be asked is, “What are the stimuli causing mass shootings?”
The answers to that question are not guns, nor the availability of semi-auto guns, nor easy access to guns as that has become more controlled and difficult and NOT easier. Therefore, given the history of guns more gun control cannot be the answer.
There is not a single answer to the question, and the answers are not simple. The stimuli causing mass shootings are multi-faceted. The stimuli for mass shootings are what need to be examined.
The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Citizens ARE the militia. Given the chance we can, and will, defend ourselves. That is the part that is purposely being ignored by those calling for gun control as the simplistic answer - while refusing to acknowledge the difficult question of identifying the stimuli behind mass shootings.
1100 years of gun powder propellants - (invented by the Chinese during the Tang Dynasty in the 9th century)
700 years of direct fire, portable weapons (guns) - (invented by the Chinese in the 13th century)
235 years of repeating arms - (Girondoni air rifle 1780)
135 years of semiautomatic weapons - (Mannlicher Model 85, 1885)
Despite the ready availability of semi-auto guns for 135 years, it seems that only in the past 35 years that mass shootings have become a problem.
Therefore, the question that should be asked is, “What are the stimuli causing mass shootings?”
The answers to that question are not guns, nor the availability of semi-auto guns, nor easy access to guns as that has become more controlled and difficult and NOT easier. Therefore, given the history of guns more gun control cannot be the answer.
There is not a single answer to the question, and the answers are not simple. The stimuli causing mass shootings are multi-faceted. The stimuli for mass shootings are what need to be examined.
The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Citizens ARE the militia. Given the chance we can, and will, defend ourselves. That is the part that is purposely being ignored by those calling for gun control as the simplistic answer - while refusing to acknowledge the difficult question of identifying the stimuli behind mass shootings.
Last edited:
RAfiringline
New member
>From what i read on this forum then they are wininng.<
Winning what? What have you read on the forum that makes you think they're winning? Because anti-gun people are trying to use latest attack as a reason for further gun control? That's what they always do.
> If you read my erlier post you will see that i am well aware what terrorists want.<
I read it and it looked to me like you don't know what you're talking about.
Terrorists do terror because they can't win militarily, so they try to frighten people into letting them get their way.
Winning what? What have you read on the forum that makes you think they're winning? Because anti-gun people are trying to use latest attack as a reason for further gun control? That's what they always do.
> If you read my erlier post you will see that i am well aware what terrorists want.<
I read it and it looked to me like you don't know what you're talking about.
Terrorists do terror because they can't win militarily, so they try to frighten people into letting them get their way.
Colorado Redneck
New member
Not so sure that ccw holders could stop the terrorists in San Bernardino. How many police did it take to subdue them? Were the shooters wearing tactical gear? How does a 9mm penetrate body armor?
Not against concealed carry nor am I in favor of gun control, as it is usually presented. Just prefer a realistic point of view. Those shooters were heavily armed and had ill intent. Seemed downright cold blooded. So resistance was unlikely to deter them for even a moment.
Not against concealed carry nor am I in favor of gun control, as it is usually presented. Just prefer a realistic point of view. Those shooters were heavily armed and had ill intent. Seemed downright cold blooded. So resistance was unlikely to deter them for even a moment.
I argue this issue all the time with people I know. No, having guns does not guarantee we will not be victims. It does give us a fighting chance rather than being docile sheep led to the slaughter. An armed victim may be able to take out the attacker and reduce or eliminate other deaths.
101combatvet
New member
National Carry Permits for everyone who wants to take on the bad guys. 
RAfiringline
New member
>I argue this issue all the time with people I know. No, having guns does not guarantee we will not be victims. It does give us a fighting chance rather than being docile sheep led to the slaughter. An armed victim may be able to take out the attacker and reduce or eliminate other deaths.<
A good concise statement.
However, what I was addressing in the original post of the thread, was a way of arguing against a general confiscation of high capacity semi-auto guns in the US, which is the objective of the liberals, and where it appears things are heading.
A good concise statement.
However, what I was addressing in the original post of the thread, was a way of arguing against a general confiscation of high capacity semi-auto guns in the US, which is the objective of the liberals, and where it appears things are heading.
aherrera773
New member
When I first heard about the San Bernadino shootings. I had no idea that the terrorists were isis sympathizers. And I'm not sure what certain politicians knew about the terrorists backgrounds. I felt for the victims but it seemed like in no time at all our idiot leaders were saying "there's a common sense solution to this problem". But they have no idea who they are letting into this country as the female terrorist was from Pakistan and raised in Saudi Arabia here on a marriage visa. They also turn a blind eye and even force the relocation illegal alien and refugees. I cant understand why they would want us defenseless and at the same time importing terrorists. With events unfolding the way they are I cant see myself wanting to go anywhere unarmed. Another point to this matter is homemade devices were found at place they were renting. Which means any sort of gun control imposed on the terrorists would be meaningless as they had other methods causing death and destruction. As concerned citizens what can we do to let the creeps thinking about doing these things know were tired of they're crap?
I could not disagree more . There side is rubbish , are side just wants to be able to defend there family's . The one more/extra firearm I'd like to have is the one at my 4 O-clock . My problem is that I am in CA and can't defend my self with equal force because I don't have good cause .
Now that our government has failed to fight this over there . The least I should be able to do is protect my self and family over here .
They were not wearing body armor . They where just in tactical garb . Big difference .
I don't want to CCW to stop a mass shooting . I want to CCW to have a fighting chance to survive a mass shooting or any grave threat to me or my family . Big difference .
Don't get me started on that one . Lets leave the bombs out of this for now and just look at the firearms . The media & anti's keep bringing up the guns were bought legally completely leaving out the fact both rifles were "illegally" modified as well as the magazines . From what I've read both rifles had there bullet buttons removed or modified , they attempted to make one full auto and failed and the mags had the permanent block that makes them 10rds only removed some how . ALL of those things are illegal to do . So what new laws are going to help again ?
But wait there's more . They drop off and abandon there 6 month old baby but closing the so called "gun show loophole" is going to change there minds .
Last edited:
Prevent: keep something from happening or arising.
Stop: cause an action, process, or event to come to an end.
Ameliorate: to make something which is bad or unsatisfactory better.
It's very hard to prevent terrorist attacks. More guns are unlikely to prevent further attacks because often terrorists will attack even when they are sure to die in the attempt. I don't believe they will be dissuaded from attacking because of the possibility of encountering armed resistance.
It may also be hard for a single person armed with a concealed handgun to stop an attack once it starts. Multiple attackers armed with rifles vs. one person with a concealed handgun isn't a very even fight.
All that said, the facts that terrorist attacks can't be prevented and that it's unlikely that multiple, terrorists armed with rifles could be stopped in their tracks by a single CCW holder, doesn't mean that more guns in civilian hands would be useless.
More guns could ameliorate future terrorist attacks by reducing the amount of time that the terrorists can operate before encountering armed resistance. The assumption is that any armed resistance will at least slow them down, reducing the time they have to kill innocent persons before SWAT can arrive.
Every second that the attackers spend dealing with an armed defender is a second NOT spent carrying out their plan. That may not be prevention, and it may not stop the attackers, but it very well could reduce the overall fatalities & injuries. And, of course, there is the possibility that it could end the attack if the CCW holder is very lucky or very skilled, or both.
Stop: cause an action, process, or event to come to an end.
Ameliorate: to make something which is bad or unsatisfactory better.
It's very hard to prevent terrorist attacks. More guns are unlikely to prevent further attacks because often terrorists will attack even when they are sure to die in the attempt. I don't believe they will be dissuaded from attacking because of the possibility of encountering armed resistance.
It may also be hard for a single person armed with a concealed handgun to stop an attack once it starts. Multiple attackers armed with rifles vs. one person with a concealed handgun isn't a very even fight.
All that said, the facts that terrorist attacks can't be prevented and that it's unlikely that multiple, terrorists armed with rifles could be stopped in their tracks by a single CCW holder, doesn't mean that more guns in civilian hands would be useless.
More guns could ameliorate future terrorist attacks by reducing the amount of time that the terrorists can operate before encountering armed resistance. The assumption is that any armed resistance will at least slow them down, reducing the time they have to kill innocent persons before SWAT can arrive.
Every second that the attackers spend dealing with an armed defender is a second NOT spent carrying out their plan. That may not be prevention, and it may not stop the attackers, but it very well could reduce the overall fatalities & injuries. And, of course, there is the possibility that it could end the attack if the CCW holder is very lucky or very skilled, or both.
San Bernardino would have happened with or without guns, probably more casualties without the guns. The vehicle would have been loaded with the explosives found at the home. Probably never know why they didn't do that to begin with. The system that failed was the immigration system and "visa" process. Why wasn't the visa denied and she put on a watch list? That rhetoric doesn't satisfy.. We (media)never look any deeper than the guns.
RAfiringline
New member
>Which means any sort of gun control imposed on the terrorists would be meaningless as they had other methods causing death and destruction. As concerned citizens
*what can we do to let the creeps thinking about doing these things know were tired of they're crap?*<
I think there has to be a lot of talk and awareness not just about the Second Amendment rights, but about *why* they exist and why letting liberals destroy them will be ineffective in stopping terrorist atrocities.
Bombing, stabbing attacks, vehicles running into crowds are some examples to point out.
And, pointing out that giving these scumbags victories in the form of fear reactions like increased gun control, will only show them that terrorism gets results.
*what can we do to let the creeps thinking about doing these things know were tired of they're crap?*<
I think there has to be a lot of talk and awareness not just about the Second Amendment rights, but about *why* they exist and why letting liberals destroy them will be ineffective in stopping terrorist atrocities.
Bombing, stabbing attacks, vehicles running into crowds are some examples to point out.
And, pointing out that giving these scumbags victories in the form of fear reactions like increased gun control, will only show them that terrorism gets results.
Winning because i read on this and other forums, for axample some posting they now avoid large crowds shopping malls etc, changing their life style, anti Muslim rhetoric, all things the terrorists want. Not all people most just get on with it and doint let terrorists or the fear of terror change their life style or way of life.
RAfiringline
New member
>[terrorists] Winning because i read on this and other forums, for axample some posting they now avoid large crowds shopping malls etc, changing their life style, anti Muslim rhetoric, all things the terrorists want. Not all people most just get on with it and doint let terrorists or the fear of terror change their life style or way of life.<
There all sorts of fools posting all sorts of things on the internet.
The Sep 11, 2001 attacks killed almost 3000 people and created a small amount of fear and a large amount of retaliation on the scumbags.
This recent attack was a lot smaller, the scumbags were killed fairly quickly by the police, and the largest reaction in the US is by liberals who think that making people defenseless will create a more peaceful world.
Personally, I think the best way to have peace is by being prepared to meet violence with violence.
There all sorts of fools posting all sorts of things on the internet.
The Sep 11, 2001 attacks killed almost 3000 people and created a small amount of fear and a large amount of retaliation on the scumbags.
This recent attack was a lot smaller, the scumbags were killed fairly quickly by the police, and the largest reaction in the US is by liberals who think that making people defenseless will create a more peaceful world.
Personally, I think the best way to have peace is by being prepared to meet violence with violence.
- Status